Trochilus Tales

Monday, July 28, 2008

Funny Comment of the Day

From a new post by Ed Morrissey, here. Debra Bartoshevich, a 41 year old official delegate for Hillary Clinton to the Democratic National convention, and who hails from Waterford, Wisconsin, has been officially "expelled" from the 92-member delegation to the national convention, to be held in Denver, Colorado, beginning on August 28th.

Debra, an emergency room nurse by profession, who strongly supports Hillary's universal medical care proposals, lost her position as a delegate because of reaction to her publicly stating over a month ago, that she would instead vote for John McCain for President. That was in mid-June, right after Hillary suspended her Presidential campaign. She has now been removed from the position of "delegate" by the Administrative Committee of the state's Democrat Party apparatus.

She states that she refuses to vote for Barack Obama as he is unqualified for the position. Though she says she has never voted for a Republican, Debra has since quit the Democrat party, and has publicly declared that she will vote for John McCain, even if Hillary is on the ticket with Obama.

Here is the YouTube clip from the Channel 12 News in Wisconsin.

Ed Morrissey posted the story and video on Hot Air earlier today, entitling it Democrat delegate "done with the Democratic Party" thus prompting a series of comments.

An early comment on Ed's post, from Sekhmet (who hails from Austin, Texas), caught our eye immediately. Shades of Patton, here it is:

Friday, July 25, 2008

Whence, "The Only Serious Book . . . ?" *

John McCain had a great opening line, which he delivered at a Lance Armstrong Livestrong Foundation event for cancer survivors yesterday, held at Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The occasion was billed as a Presidential Townhall meeting. Both candidates had been invited. Multi-year Tour de France champion, Lance Armstrong is a cancer survivor, as is John McCain, who has had a few bouts with skin melanoma.

Said McCain, after being warmly introduced by Lance Armstrong:

My opponent, of course, is traveling in Europe, and tomorrow his tour takes him to France. In a scene that Lance would recognize, a throng of adoring fans awaits Senator Obama in Paris -- and that's just the American press.

According to Jonathan Martin on Politico, however, he said he heard the delivery was followed by an awkward laugh. Well, having seen it on NECN video, I'm not so sure awkward is correct. It was a pretty full laugh, to be sure. But the audience laughed and applauded as well. That's not awkward.

The point McCain made is certainly well taken. If Barack Obama has suffered any lasting damage by exposure at all on this whirlwind tour of Europe, it seems quite clear that it has been entirely self-induced -- such as, by abruptly cancelling a planned visit to wounded American troops at a hospital in Germany, and offering an inexcusable and lame explanation for doing so.

Many commentators have correctly noted that McCain used to enjoy excellent press coverage himself, even joking that the press was his "base." But more recently, he has found himself out in the cold.

Now comes word from The New Republic reporter Gabriel Sherman, who strongly suggests that the American press affair with Barack Obama is officially yesterday's news.

End of the Affair details several recent incidents that suggest that the heart of the matter from the press perspective is the Obama campaign's defensiveness over reporters queries regarding two primary issues: the Barack Obama biography, and problems that he has with certain groups of voters.

Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

If it true, as Sherman claims in this TNR piece, that the affair is indeed over, one immediate question comes to mind -- who will be the one to say, "Look, I think it would be best if we both began seeing other people."

For those who has been around since Neil Sedaka was burning up the pop charts, back in the mid-sixties, let's just remember that indeed Breakin' Up Is Hard to Do. Ed Morrissey at HotAir quite appropriately plucked that song title as the header for his take on the subject of the TNR piece. There is simply a basic truth to that sentiment, which probably explains why few songs in pop history have been more recorded (or parodied), and by a broader array of artists.

So, both Ed and Allapundit at Hot Air are taking the cynics view of the likelihood this TNR article portends any sort final break, or even much more than a temporary a cold shoulder from the media. Agreed.

Says Ed:

However, as as Allahpundit said last night, I’d doubt that the media will suddenly send a Dear Barack letter to the campaign and rediscover their amorous passion for McCain, and for a simple reason — Obama’s younger and better looking, and has better sound bites. Obama sells, and the media’s passion will follow both the money and their own progressive biases. Besides, they have to compete with their European counterparts, who clearly haven’t become jaded with the Obamessiah yet:

He's got that right! Just read the clip he quoted from the article by German magazine reporter for Bild, Judith Bonesky! Matt Drudge has posted the original today!

No, I am not kidding -- that is the name of the reporter, who quite openly flirted in a touchy-feely sort of way with Senator Obama during a workout in a German gym, and who then actually concluded her piece breathlessly following his workout . . . "What a man!" Some people -- and not just reporters -- cannot get anywhere near a person with perceived power without literally losing their minds. Glenn Beck correctly anticipated that one, as he was noting the depth of media fascination with everything Obama!

And, there is one more important reason to treat the TNR article with a grain of salt.

The public itself is currently focusing with a gimlet eye on the obvious political bias in the news media.

Today's Drudge Report is rife with links to media bias stories. For example, Howard Kurtz's "Obama Abroad: We Get the Picture," in the Washington Post.

To the extent that that the public recognizes and sees through the mainstream media bias, including, in some very recent instances, actual censoring filters, it is in the strong interest of those whose bias leans left to at least try to counteract that perception, or to at least try and throw up some sort of smokescreen.

What better than a story formally announcing that the Obama flirtation by the media is now officially over? Let's not forget that in the relatively recent past, TNR, a left-leaning publication, was certainly not above enabling the wholesale manufacture of a story in order to press an agenda -- remember Scott Thomas Beauchamp -- and even sticking with it when they got caught.

No, the media affair with Barack does not appear to be done with. As I recall, Hud Bannon once contradicted Homer, saying, "Well . . . it may be over. But it's not done with, not by a long shot!"

*Walter Lippman once said that that newspapers were the "Bible of democracy," and, further that a newspaper, "is the only serious book most people read."

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Rhetoric versus Reality

Apparently in this age of Obama, there is a new standard that now applies to what some candidates for office may openly declare in a speech, regardless of the extent to which it demonstrate a complete and utter disregard for the truth. Either that, or reporters should have a few tough questions for this candidate.

We have always known the phrase "rhetorical excess," but on the permissive side, the implication always seemed to be that a momentary and illuminating flourish might safely wander a bit beyond the strict bounds of objective reality. But what of blatant and open contradictions? Do we no longer hold speakers to their statements at all?

An example: Obama's speech today in Germany opened today with this little flourish, "Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen -- a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world."

Yet, his campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs used as an excuse for Sen. Barack Obama scrapping plans to visit wounded American soldiers, members of our armed forces at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, "because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey."

Wait . . . I thought he said he was not there as a candidate for President?

So . . . the speech delivered to German crowds, which Obama proclaimed was not campaign related, was okay to deliver, even though it was funded using campaign money. But visiting wounded American soldiers in the hospital was not okay, even though he could have easily done that without spending a dime of campaign funds, and not brought the press along with him.

Barack Obama could have simply made the judgment that it was the right thing to do.

Monday, July 21, 2008

An Op-Ed By SenatorJohn McCain

What follows below is an Op-Ed submission (h.t. Drudge, here) made by Republican Senator John McCain to the New York Times. The Republican candidate for President submitted the Op-Ed in response to an Op-Ed submission by Democrat candidate for President, Senator Barack Obama, which was printed in full by the New York Times on their Op-Ed page.

Astonishingly, McCains's submission was rejected by the Op-Ed page Editor, David Shipley, ostensibly on the grounds that it did not contain "mirror" the piece submitted by Obama, including specifying calendar-based time-lines, a proposal that has been expressly rejected by John McCain all along! Senator McCain points out that Senator Obama's dated plan, does not recognize current circumstances in Iraq, is not linked to the achievement of favorable conditions on the ground, and is not based on victory.

There was no title in the Drudge re-print. Consequently, the following title is mine.

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation "hard" but not "hopeless." Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there," he said on January 10, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that "our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence." But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, "Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress." Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City — actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his "plan for Iraq" in advance of his first "fact finding" trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five "surge" brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his "plan for Iraq." Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be "very dangerous."

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the "Mission Accomplished" banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

As you may have read on Drudge today, the New York Times has rejected an Op-Ed piece on Iraq submitted by Senator John McCain, apparently on the theory that it did not meet their view of what a proper resolution of the conflict should be! Their Op-Ed page editor, David Shipley, a former Clinton administration official, sent an email to McCAin last Friday saying,

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Perhaps, just before he left on his whirlwind tour, Barack Obama mused out loud in front of aides, "Won't someone rid us of this troublesome surge?" We'll probably never know.

Surely, all of the admitted and utterly shameless Obama apologists will now rush in to explain to us why Barack Obama's campaign has suddenly purged his web site of anti-surge propaganda, while claiming that his opposition to the surge has not abated, not even a teeny-weeny bit? The New York Daily Newsreported it today in a story by James Gordon Meek of their Washington Bureau.

And, according to a post by Mike Allen at Jonathan Martin's Blog on Politico, entitled "Surge meets purge" which was just put up just this morning citing that Daily News story, Barck Obama has now "refined" his website, BUT NOT HIS POSITION.

From Allen's post:

The McCain camaign [sic] is poking fun at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for a report in today's New York Daily News that he had cleansed BarackObama.com of past criticism of the surge strategy in Iraq.. . .

Campaign aide Wendy Morigi said Obama is 'not softening his criticism of the surge. We regularly update the Web site to reflect changes in current events.' "

Got that last comment? Barry is NOT softening his criticism of the surge, but his website is being updated "to reflect changes in current events."

Like . . . the success of the surge, Wendy?

Does that mean that Barack Obama is now officially divorced from reality, or maybe the campaign spin will be that he is merely "of two minds" on the subject?

What is he going to say to our American troops when he gets to Iraq? You’ll remember them. They were the ones who put their lives on the line to turn the situation around. They were also the ones who succeeded in doing that? The surge policy that both Barack Obama and his new best friend, Senator Timothy "Chuck" Hagel (R - Nebraska) vehemently opposed? Tim is going to join Barack in talking to the troops there. He was dead wrong on the surge when he told CNN that it would be "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam, if it's carried out."

Maybe Senator Obama will say something like this to the troops in Iraq:

"I continue to oppose the surge, but you guys sure did a good job in the surge."

And, by having officially taken on his own campaign now, will that not seem strange to the American people?

He says he wants them to elect him President, which would make him the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Or, do you think the American people will just laugh that off as "politics as usual" from Obama?

Mind you, Barack Obama has had, shall we say, "differences" with his staff in the recent past on the topic of Iraq. In fact, his campaign spokesmen and strategists have taken to lying out loud about what his position on the surge was at the time it was initiated.

"I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that that is going to make a substantial difference on the ground."

That was because at the time he said that, he had refused to talk to General Petraeus, the man who literally wrote the book (commercial version here) on counter-insurgency warfare. Petraeus was well known to be the military expert on the subject, from long before the surge was implemented.

Of course, Obama actually has talked to him, as you can see here:

So . . . what's next?

Well, for one thing, I suppose that honest comics will no longer have any trouble at all getting laughs about Obama, regardless of what Bill Carter reported in the New York Times today!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

The Coarse Whisperer

Did you ever think you'd live to see the day?

Jesse Jackson shares what he really thinks in a whispered aside to a fellow guest-to-be, within ear shot range of a Fox News Channel hot microphone in the Fox and Friends studio in Chicago on Sunday, just before the two of them were going to be taped for the morning show. (ht: NY Post video).

There is simply no easy way for a minister to explain what he meant when he said -- in relation to Barack Obama's recent expressions of support for faith-based initiatives -- that, "I wanna cut his nuts out!"*

Check out the little hand gesture he made for emphasis with his right hand, right after he said that! And, notice the twisted little look on his face!

Oh, Jesse!

He sharply opined that Barack had "been talking down to black people."

Jackson spent the rest of the day yesterday apologizing and trying to explain what he was thinking . . . but not very convincingly!

Later, one of his patent over-board comments came across as sadly laughable under the circumstances, asserting as he did that he cherished "this redemptive and historical moment."

So we can see, Jesse!

Fox first aired the full tape last night via host Bill O'Reilly on his show, "The Factor." Jackson declined to appear on the show, but instead he had hastily appeared on CNN to issue his apology, trying to minimize the remark as merely being "a sound byte within a broader conversation about urban policy and racial disparities."

At CNN, Wolf Blitzer stated that the remarks were so crude, that they could not possibly repeat them on the air, but he then afforded Jackson several minutes of air time to talk about the importance of urban and racial policy. Later, however, John Roberts at CNN played the entire Fox tape, embedded here.

Bill O'Reilly said last night that he only released portions of the tape on his show, and that some of Jackson's unaired comments were worse than this one! Hard to imagine!

Given that fact, it will be tough for Jackson, or any of his apologists, to explain that this snarling boast was taken "out of context." If he does, then Fox would presumably be forced to release the entire tape!

According to the New York Post story today, "JESSE'S A 'NUT' JOB," filed by their Bureau Chief, Charles Hurt, even Jackson's namesake son, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., who is a Congressman from Chicago, condemned his father's comments.

*The transcription on the clip says "off" but it clearly sounds like he said "out" . . . a distinction without much of a difference!

Friday, July 04, 2008

The Irony of A Retreat From Cut-And-Run:Senator Obama's Policy of Retreat, Is Itself On The Run!

The sudden policy shift by Barack Obama yesterday in Fargo, ND, making it clear to observers that he was wrong about his specific insistence on precipitous withdraw from Iraq, should prove to be the loose thread in the fabric of Senator Obama's candidacy, and for one very basic reason. One or two good tugs on that thread and it will unravel, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he simply had no informed judgment at all on a matter of vital national security. Obama very publicly made his bed based on ideology, not fact, and now he has found out that he had short-sheeted himself.

The silly and oft repeated claim of his that he was the one who has showed "good judgment," was about all that the man with no experience had going for him -- other than his skill in the use of a teleprompter. Good judgment, though, is based on a measured consideration of all the evidence.

So now Barack Obama now stands before the public as perhaps the least qualified candidate for President in modern American history. Given yesterday's policy shift, the curtain is set aside, and Toto is now going to start barking at the heel of this heretofore Oz! "Pay not attention, pay no attention . . ." the Obamanians will insist. Yet we are all paying heed! Here on Independence Day!

What really compounded the error is that he had steadfastly refused to ever consider any the evidence suggesting otherwise! His was a willing suspension of judgment. Senator Barack Obama has never been to Afghanistan -- not even once. And, he has only been to Iraq on one brief occasion -- a year and a half ago, prior to the surge. In all of that time, he he also refused as well to meet with the American commanders on the ground, including General Petraeus. So here was this fancy lawyer who instead spat in the eye of all evidence to the contrary, remaining persistently ignorant of available information on which to make a more sober judgment . . . but who aspires to be our Commander in Chief!

Well, all politicians shift don't they? Has Senator McCain not shifted on drilling for domestic oil? Yes and yes. But Senator Obama has now blinked on his previously intentional and very theatrical effort to undermine our public opinion on a central element of our American foreign policy, without any real consideration of the facts.

This past primary season on the Democrat side, there was a contest of campaigns with only one recurring theme, one on which his campaign emerged triumphant over the rest of the nay-sayers, the "best" of those all urging their followers to engage in a willing suspension of disbelief, or -- if you prefer Shakespeare to Coleridge - in which they entreated their followers that "'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings" -- in this case, bad theater all, that has now begun to collapse under the weight of untruthfulness.

The play, it seems, is not the thing today. The "poetry" of the Democrat campaign is collapsing under the plain prose of a job well done by our troops in Iraq. Barack Obama and the "surrender now" crowd were in complete denial, and suddenly they must face the music.

All along, future American lives, honor and national security were at the stake.

Judgment. It comes down to this. Had the Administration listened to, and acted on his oft-repeated insistence that we get out of Iraq immediately, that we stand down by a specific timetable, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), would have quickly declared victory over the United States, and very likely have completely dominated the ensuing bloodbath and struggle for control of at least key portions of the country, as we retreated in disgrace.

Remember, Obama said . . . no . . . he demanded that we get out in 16 months. And he said that a year ago. Also remember this . . . he argued against and voted against the surge -- he would not have allowed it.

That, in spite of General Michael Hayden's assertion at the time:

"I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West."

So, as a result of the implementation of Obama's policy, the United States would now be in a substantially weakened strategic position in the Middle East, and indeed throughout the world.

As for AQI, they could well now be in a position to begin exploiting oil revenues to finance their next enhanced phase of terrorism -- al-Qaeda on steroids -- with a steady source (about 6 billion barrels) of revenue-producing oil under their control, enough to fully fund a generation of terror and fear. No more caves for those beasts! Bring bin-Laden and Zawahiri in from the cold! And, they would be in a position to militarily threaten any remaining allies we had as well. How long before they took up Ayman al-Zawahiri's call for AQI to initiate further attacks here on our homeland?

You think disruption of the oil markets is causing higher fuel prices as it is? Imagine if we had actually listened to the Democrats . . . and an al-Qaeda nation was now facing us as a result of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Murtha, et al., having forced our retreat?

Instead, AQI made the huge mistake of believing that they could defeat us militarily in this battle in the war on terror. They recruited huge numbers of Islamist fighters for that battle, who streamed into Iraq, and they redirected resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, only to be swept up in one of the great turn-arounds in military history -- they lost, and the entire AQI organization is now in a shambles, and scrambling for the exits.

As recently reported in The New Yorker by Lawrence Wright, even one of the original "masterminds" of the al-Qaeda cause, the mysterious "Dr. Fadl" is now daring to openly reject the underpinnings of terror as a means to their end, and he is claiming it is so on religious grounds.

Real leaders, like Senator John McCain, showed excellent judgment when the chips were down. They pressed the Bush Administration for the implementation of the surge strategy.

Obama vehemently argued against the surge at the time, and voted against it as well.

Last July, before the success of the surge had begun to emerge in the public consciousness, John McCain stood up on the floor of the Senate in the middle of the night to defend the continuation of the surge. His campaign for the Presidency was seemingly in disarray, and yet McCain stood firmly on principle.

Here was the conclusion to his speech (ht: Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters) that hot July night, just one year ago:

"I am privileged, as we all are, to be subject to the judgment of the American people and history. But, my friends, they are not always the same judgment. The verdict of the people will arrive long before history’s. I am unlikely to ever know how history has judged us in this hour. The public’s judgment of me I will know soon enough. I will accept it, as I must. But whether it is favorable or unforgiving, I will stand where I stand, and take comfort from my confidence that I took my responsibilities to my country seriously, and despite the mistakes I have made as a public servant and the flaws I have as an advocate, I tried as best I could to help the country we all love remain as safe as she could be in an hour of serious peril."

John McCain was right. Barack Obama was wrong, and is now himself in retreat.

This is no time to listen to someone without any experience or qualifications whatsoever, or who has no ideas -- except vague pie-in-the-sky talk, and the now haunting echoes of a demand that we cut-and-run like cowards when the going got tough.

We live in a real world; and this is not a play! Freedom and liberty are realities we Americans have helped define for our modern world. We have our own deck of leaders to think of kindly.

Today, we marked the reopening of the United States Embassy at the Brandenburg Gate with celebrations in Berlin. Former President George H.W. Bush who was in office at the time of the reunification of Germany, was there representing the United States. The embassy was closed during World War II by the Nazi regime. Following the war, the site was enclosed, cut off and demolished by East Germany on orders from the Soviets when they built the Berlin wall.

But we Americans and our allies never backed down during the Cold War era, even when the Soviets imposed the Berlin Blockade some 60 years ago, in June of 1948. A Democratic administration led by President Harry Truman initiated the Berlin Airlift, that succeeded beyond anyone's expectations, and ultimately the Soviets blinked, allowing an opening up of ground transportation to bring needed supplies to the people of that city. And Truman initiated the Marshall Plan to protect much of war-exhausted Europe from also falling under Soviet domination. We did not lose our bearings, and freedom from Soviet oppression finally emerged triumphant in Eastern Europe after Ronald Reagan symbolically stood on the spot, and challenged, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" All that, in spite of a long series of insistent tactical demands for American retreat over the years, by an increasingly leftward-drifting Democrat Party.

It is, therefore, not without a touch of irony to be able, here on this lovely July Fourth, to witness this latest professor of lefty incantations, this latest in personam representative of that long, dangerous leftward drift in the Democrat Party -- Senator Barack Obama -- suddenly being forced to "crawfish," as country folk used to say . . . to backslide from his specific and persistent demands for our immediate retreat in Iraq.

Meanwhile, he is insisting -- of course -- that nothing has changed! But please, mark your calendars -- something indeed has changed!

Thursday, July 03, 2008

Funny Comment Of The Day, 07/03/2008

This afternoon at 3:40 pm, someone named Bragi at the Democratic Underground (DU) posted a portion of the New York Times blog news entitled, "Obama Might 'Refine' Iraq Timeline" which was, in turn, prompted by comments Barack Obama had made in Fargo, North Dakota, earlier in the day:

Source: NYT

FARGO, N.D. – Senator Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but added that he would be open to "refine my policies" about a timeline for withdrawing troops after meeting with American military commanders during a trip to Iraq later this month.

Mr. Obama, whose popularity in the Democratic primary was built upon a sharp opposition to the war and an often-touted 16-month gradual timetable for removing combat troops, dismissed suggestions that he was changing positions in the wake of reductions in violence in Iraq and a general election fight with Senator John McCain.

"I’ve always said that the pace of withdrawal would be dictated by the safety and security of our troops and the need to maintain stability. That assessment has not changed," he said. "And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information

Read more:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/obama-ope...

There was an immediate and intense feeding frenzy on the DU board, some commenters flying into full panic mode, while others fired off shrill polemical responses about the "criminal" nature of our involvement, and even one or two less intense expressions, suggesting that his statement really represented nothing new. The following commenter, jgraz, below, was responding to one of those latter comments, and posted our idea of the funny comment of the day -- though I'll readily concede he may not have meant it that way!

Wednesday, July 02, 2008

Funny Comment of the Day, July 2, 2008

On a post by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, "Obama got sweetheart deal on home loan,"about the Washington Postinvestigative report, “Obama Got Discount Home Loan,” written by Joe Stephens, regarding the eyebrow-raising terms (below market rate, no origination fee, no points) on the "super super jumbo" $1.32 million dollar, 30 year fixed-rate home mortgage loan Barack Obama and his wife received from Chicago's Northern Trust Corporation, back on June 8, 2005, when the first-term United States Senator bought his up-scale Georgian mansion in the Windy City.

" ... It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?>"